An action of professional negligence was brought against two doctors for alleged negligence when the pursuer was a young child. He was 18 in 1986 and raised an action against the first defender within the triennium provided for in section 17(4) of the 1973 Act. When the action was raised he understood that the second defender had died but when he discovered that the second defender was, in fact, still alive he brought him into the action one month after the expiry of the triennium.
Held: ‘The discretion which is to be exercised under section 19A(1) has been said to be unfettered, and it is necessary to balance all the circumstances of the case and also the interests of all parties concerned . . It is for the pursuer to satisfy us that it would be equitable to allow him to proceed with his action . .’
Judges:
Lord President Hope
Citations:
1994 SC 87
Cited by:
Cited – David Lannigan v Glasgow City Council OHCS 12-Aug-2004
The pursuer said the teachers employed by the defendant had failed to identify that was dyslexic, leading him to suffer damage. The defenders said the claim was time barred, which the pursuer admitted, but then said that the claim ought to go ahead . .
Cited – Bowden v Poor Sisters of Nazareth and others and similar HL 21-May-2008
The appellants said they had suffered abuse while resident at children’s homes run by the respondents. The respondents denied the allegations and said that they were also out of time. The claims were brought many years after the events.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Limitation
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.200280
